Ooops sorry, hit the button too soon.
I have given you references of where my interpertation comes from. It is stated clearly in the documents I posted for you.

Your rebuttal has been, I don’t see it that way and you have given examples of your opinion.

That’s fine. Neither of us are right or wrong until the Vatican takes action. Understanding that neither of us are Vatican lawyers. My opinion runs true to what my pastor also believes (who btw has a PhD) so, you can call it false but I’ll go with his opinion, rather than yours. Luckily, we have a wonderful Priest who has no problem with guiding us in these matters.

If you can point our where I stated that this is the “authentic teaching of the church” or “Has been done” I am more than willing to retract it.

161
posted on 08/27/2008 5:48:07 AM PDT
by netmilsmom
(The Party of Darkness prefers to have the lights out. - Go Fierce 50!!!)

Thanks all of you for an interesting discussion. Nancy has placed herself outside the Catholic Faith. That is evident. Also evident is scandalous behavior should she receive Holy Communion in the future. Hopefully, this public reprobation of her remarks this past Sunday by leading Catholic clerics would make that impossible.

As to public penance, I can understand the need so that others know she’s regained her belief and standing within the Church. It was the private repentance I was focusing on.

Again, thanks for a great roundtable.

162
posted on 08/27/2008 5:57:15 AM PDT
by bcsco
(Obama's just biden his time until McCain wins in November.)

“Your rebuttal has been, I dont see it that way and you have given examples of your opinion.”

You have again misrepresented my view.

“Neither of us are right or wrong until the Vatican takes action.”

To have an opinion where there is not clarity is not wrong.

To say other than that it is one's opinion is wrong.

This opinion has been offered on different threads as the explanation of Catholic discipline to posters asking just what is Catholic discipline on this question.

To offer it as the explanation of Catholic discipline on the question is to falsify.

That is especially so in that you have not at all made a case justifying why pro-abort “Catholic” politicians can be said to have directly participated in the procurement of specific abortions. At this point, your assertion isn't even actually argued, just asserted. Try to make the argument.

But that's a bit off the point.

The point is that the idea that these folks are automatically excommunicated is being thrown around as an explanation of Catholic discipline as if it were a settled issue.

It is nothing close to that. At best, it's a theory, a speculation.

sitetest

163
posted on 08/27/2008 6:24:10 AM PDT
by sitetest
(If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)

Lets analyze the stunning new page that our sister Nancy has invited the prelates to turn.

Cardinal Egan has chosen to speak out about a Catholic who is not in his diocese. Very unusual for a bishop or cardinal. And very unusual for Cardinal Egan.

Excerpt from Cardinal Egan's statment:

"In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, [just the biological facts, nothing new here]

a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend [again, nothing new]

at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.[new idea that basic non-sectarian humanism alone demands this, not religion]

They are not parts of their mothers, [nothing new]

and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. [WOW: 'This is NOT about religion, this is about HUMANE TREATMENT of other humans REGARDLESS of your FAITH or lack of faith']

Anyone who dares [no nuance here: 'how dare you!']

to defend that they may be legitimately killed [no nuance here: 'we're talking about cold-blooded killing']

because another human being chooses to do so [scare quotes!: translated as 'choice is a vapid transparent lie']

or for any other equally ridiculous reason [the pro-"choice" argument is so empty and shallow as to be ridiuclous - worthy of ridicule - utterly without any merit whatsoever]

should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." ['In case you misunderstood me: that means you, too, OBAMA and HILLARY - we don't care what religion you are, this is not about religion, and if you support abortion, you are UNFIT TO LEAD']

165
posted on 08/27/2008 7:15:29 AM PDT
by Notwithstanding
("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)

Lets analyze the stunning new page that our sister Nancy has invited the prelates to turn.

Cardinal Egan has chosen to speak out about a Catholic who is not in his diocese. Very unusual for a bishop or cardinal. And very unusual for Cardinal Egan.

Excerpt from Cardinal Egan's statment:

"In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, [just the biological facts, nothing new here]

a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend [again, nothing new]

at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.[new idea that basic non-sectarian humanism alone demands this, not religion]

They are not parts of their mothers, [nothing new]

and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. [WOW: 'This is NOT about religion, this is about HUMANE TREATMENT of other humans REGARDLESS of your FAITH or lack of faith']

Anyone who dares [no nuance here: 'how dare you!']

to defend that they may be legitimately killed [no nuance here: 'we're talking about cold-blooded killing']

because another human being chooses to do so [scare quotes!: translated as 'choice is a vapid transparent lie']

or for any other equally ridiculous reason [the pro-"choice" argument is so empty and shallow as to be ridiuclous - worthy of ridicule - utterly without any merit whatsoever]

should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." ['In case you misunderstood me: that means you, too, OBAMA and HILLARY - we don't care what religion you are, this is not about religion, and if you support abortion, you are UNFIT TO LEAD']

166
posted on 08/27/2008 7:18:11 AM PDT
by Notwithstanding
("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)

I can't argue with a single thing you pointed out, as I, too, attend Mass with regularity and have taught PSR, cleaned the sanctuary, decorated it for Easter, etc. My husband ran the most successful Sunday School and PSR program in the diocese and we are both very familiar with the cafeteria Catholic mentality.

I do still stand by what I said. Ms. Pelosi shows up, goes through the motions and receives some (not all of the benefits of the sacraments), but hasn't given what she's heard a second thought, or if she has, she has willfully ignored it because it doesn't fit her idea of “how we can do better.”

This will be my last reply to you on this issue. Egan and others have it right. Ms. Pelosi has it wrong. She's either handicapped with “tin eared” syndrome or deliberately “tone deaf”. Not my call to make.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.